04-09-2001 16:42									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well, at least in Civ2, wars uses to lenght a lot, your initial forces uses to be killed easily (if you have a competitive enemy, I mean), and constant replacements are needed, so resource embargoes tends to be quite effective in that case.

Anyway, I would prefer some realistic aditions like that of the "need oil to move tanks", cause its historical and not so complicated to simulate. "Need men to muster units" is also a must.

The example of the 1:1 map is simply ridiculous, with that logic you would prefer a game when every civ have a dize, and the one who more scores wons the game. Some simplification is badly needed, but realistic details make the game good and funny.

	04-09-2001 16:43									#32
	Tired of ads?

At the very least we know that an embargo + attrition = an enemy without tanks.
IMO if an enemy has already ammassed 100 tank units, its a bit too late to try stopping them then with diplomacy.

BTW Provost, nice new signature

	04-09-2001 16:54									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I like these idea's because no-one can ignore the fact that in modern times the presence and availibility of oil was and still is one of the most decisive factors in global economy and warfare.
Two good examples are the fact that in WW2 Germans wanted to capture Southern Russia for its oil and then got in throuble at the end ( see the battle of the Buldge in the Ardennes) when they where short of it and their panzers ran out of fuel while they could have pushed back the allies out of Antwerp with there surprise attack and change the strategic theater by splitting up the allied forces . And most recently I don't think the Gulf War would ever been fought by the US if oil was not a strategic factor.

That being said to relate the importance of oil in the game I would put it like this : Resources should be kept simple.
1 oil well = 1 "oil" per turn.
To produce 1 oil combusting unit = 1 "oil" is consumed.
To move 1 Oil combusting unit = use of 1 "oil"
And if a civ has no more oil availible, all oil consuming units move 1/2 of there normal movement.
The rest is stockpiled evenly in every city and can be used in time of need or lost is the city is lost.
That could be done for all resources to build the idea of strategic reserves, wich I for one would love to see implemented.
Lets face the fact , modern wars are won depending or your ability to massivly produce weapons in a well "oiled" industry. (see US during WW2)
Anyway all depends on the availability of those resourses during the game, and I suppose it is too late now to implement these chenges in the game now.

BTW does anyone have an idea by what way to get Civ 3 the fastest in Belgium ? By ordering online in the US, or waiting for it to come in local stores ... I'm allready drooling you see :-) LOL

	04-09-2001 20:48									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I like the idea of requiring oil for support. Of course oil producing countries would sell me oil at a reasonable price, or would find themselves conquered faster than they could say “I surrender.”

There is always alcohol. Grow corn, make war! Oil crops could be used to make synthetic diesel. Expensive yes, but needed only until you move your army to an oil producing country and pound some sand up the @#$ of the leader who forgot to sell you oil at a “reasonable price.”

	04-09-2001 21:01									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger If handled properly restrictions on resources will add extra dimensions to diplomacy and strategy without bogging the game down. For example, in the case of oil, make it that every country has a 3 turn strategic reserve. When your civ gets cut off, you have 3 turn to re-establish supply or face the consequences

Makes perfect sense to me. You will have to renegotiate to acquire more oil, perhaps temporarily at great cost from someone else (profiteering on a restricted good, perhaps he could source your oil from your enemy, but then sell it back onto you at great profit ) until your military power comes to bear on your belligerant enemy and then *wham* you have the oilfields, you have all the laughs. Providing your military is up to it!

	04-09-2001 21:39									#36
	GIANT thumbs down! Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Big thumbs down for this idea.

Contrary to what is being stated here, this idea DOES add an extra level of complexity to Civ. One that, I might also add, does very little to make the game more strategically interesting.

Try this experiment: write out -- in complete detail -- how *exactly* this idea would be implemented and how it would work in the game. You'll find that it's much, much more difficult from a gameplay standpoint than it sounds.

Fortunately, anyone who's ever heard Sid talk about his game design philosophy should know this has a 0% chance of ever being implemented. Generally speaking, Sid doesn't add levels of complexity -- however seemingly minute -- unless those levels of complexity add a bevy of interesting choices and strategic variations as well.

Just be happy that a loss in oil means no new tanks can be produced. This is as complex as it will ever get in Civ.

	04-09-2001 22:20									#37
	Put an end to popups!

I think it will work the way you put it, but I still don't see the complexity in the "no oil, your tanks don't work anymore" scenario. How's that complex?



It's not like you'd be drawing supply lines. It's just a frigging simple rule that everyone could understand, and it would add strategic depth.

	04-09-2001 22:33									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: ... but I still don't see the complexity in the "no oil, your tanks don't work anymore" scenario. How's that complex?

Well, to be fair, that isn't really the idea I was arguing against. And if the idea simply is: you lose ALL your oil and your tanks stop working, well, that really makes no sense either. Surely your tanks just don't stop working the minute oil supplies are cut off.

This idea really adds very little to the game, in my opinion.

But if you want to add a more "realistic" version, that's when it starts becoming unncessarily complicated. That's kind of what I was railing against.

	04-09-2001 23:47									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I want to clarify myself a little.

I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

	05-09-2001 09:20									#40
	Re: GIANT thumbs down! Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet Try this experiment: write out -- in complete detail -- how *exactly* this idea would be implemented and how it would work in the game. You'll find that it's much, much more difficult from a gameplay standpoint than it sounds.

My suggestion is aburdly easy to implement.

For example: on turn n you're cut off from oil supply. You have turns n+1, n+2, and n+3 to secure a new supply of oil, either by conquest or diplomacy. If you fail, all your units requiring fuel can't move [or maybe some other forms of penalty] from turn n+4 on. All it needs is a check of supply status at the beginning of a player's turn, and start a counter if certain conditions are met.

	05-09-2001 09:47									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Gramphos I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

And one way to implement that (without undue complications) is to allow civs to move their tanks/etc around, using an alternate fuel (assumed knowledge - they dont need to research it), but only give them 2/3, 1/3 or 1/2 movement points due to the less efficient alternate fuel.

	05-09-2001 09:57									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Gramphos I don't like the idea as long as you can't develop alternative resources for the one that runs out. And as that isn’t in the game I'm against the idea.

Why? That just runs against the idea of making most modern units dependent on fuel. It makes oil fields of paramount strategic importance, and wars will be fought over them - like what happened in the real world.

	05-09-2001 14:30									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

Why play around with movement? Surely a nice simple rule like when you lose a required resource you cannot produce or repair the relevant type of unit. This will recreate attrition and suggest a certain amount of stockpiling..

This is not remotely an attempt at realism, at all, and it would add tremendously to game play.. You would have to defend certain resources.. If you have managed to upset all your opponents a total world embargo against you would really hurt, which means you have to keep at least one ally..

It wouldn't surprise me if this is in Civ3.

	05-09-2001 19:09									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Why? That just runs against the idea of making most modern units dependent on fuel. It makes oil fields of paramount strategic importance, and wars will be fought over them - like what happened in the real world.

Sweden has no oil. During World War II all cars were driven by wood-gas. We still have no oil, and we are working a lot on both using Ethanol and Methanol as fuel.

	05-09-2001 19:59									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think the simplest solution has already been pretty much said.

If you lose all your oil resources, then all units that requrie oil lose 1 movement. This owuld represent that they're now running off their stockpiles and what they can loot.

And its not a big deal to implement. A simple flag in your civ, and a simple flag on the unit and whenever you try to move a unit when you don't have oil, it will only go twice.

And this would defiently slow down those germans with their hundred tanks, without stopping them in their tracks. Caus anyone who bothers to build 100 tank divisions is also going to have stockpiled some oil.

	05-09-2001 20:41									#46
	Support Apolyton

I see what you guys are saying and -- believe me-- I understand the viewpoint completely.

You guys think it would be fun and add another (real-life) element to game play to have "oil" (and struggles to control oil) be a strategic element in the game. Surely it would be fun to have "oil" be at least a tactical consideration like it is in real life. And it wouldn't be complicated.

However, what I don't think you see is that this tactical element falls outside Sid's "focus" for the game and a very narrow focus for games is something Sid strongly believes in.

What you have here is a bunch of "resources" that are all treated equally by the game. And then you add one that is treated (and hence valued) differently. I don't know how you can't see that -- no matter how simple it is to implement -- this undeniably broadens the focus of the game. It loses some of the simplicity.
There are resources... and they are all treated the same.. except one has additional strategic value and is -- hence -- necessary to value differently. No matter how simple the change is, the complexity of GAME STRATEGY that must be used increases.

It may not be difficult to understand, but anytime the value of something changes in a strategy game -- the overall strategy for playing the game changes. So, you now you have players who have to take into consideration: resources, happiness, culture, technology, military, population, AND... (yes, AND) OIL. Why Oil AND resources? Doesn't the mention of resources cover it?

I submit that oil must be now considered separately from resources because OIL is no longer a generic resource. It's something DIFFERENT, and therefore it requires ADDITIONAL tactical consideration.

I still don't know if I'm communicating myself clearly, but this is why I think with almost 100% certainty that Sid isn't going to implement this feature...

In fact, I'll even make a small wager on it with you guys This is not going to be in the game because of the reasons just stated. Anyone wanna take the challenge?

	05-09-2001 21:08									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo I think the simplest solution has already been pretty much said. If you lose all your oil resources, then all units that requrie oil lose 1 movement. This owuld represent that they're now running off their stockpiles and what they can loot. And its not a big deal to implement. A simple flag in your civ, and a simple flag on the unit and whenever you try to move a unit when you don't have oil, it will only go twice. And this would defiently slow down those germans with their hundred tanks, without stopping them in their tracks. Caus anyone who bothers to build 100 tank divisions is also going to have stockpiled some oil.

Sounds good, but I still hope that we at least can edit and define alternative resources.

	05-09-2001 23:49									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree Frugal Gourmet. That kind of things won´t be implemented.

The most complicated resource management system of a Sid´s game, I think it was colonization (you have to commerce with concrete goods to earn 1 gold). Later Sid´s games, has been less complicated. I guess Firaxis is trying games based on "solid rules" (but the few and less complicated possible).

	06-09-2001 02:04									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Colonization was a fine art to get the right resources in the right place at the right time, and then process them all, ship them and maximise profits...but yeah, this will be a lot simpler, although I still do not think that this will detract from the game. If you don't have the resource, you should be able to repair your unit, simple as that...